Disposed

Ms. Sabina Shazan v. Dr. Vicar Qureshi

Telangana HC17 Feb 2023CRP/465/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana moderated an interim order in a landlord-tenant dispute wherein it clarified the petitioner's liability to deposit rent at a fixed monthly rate with the lower court pending the final disposal of the suit. The court modified the lower court's order to ensure consistent deposit of amounts.

What did the court decide?

The Court clarified that the petitioner must deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 2,52,000 per month with the Court below and modified the lower court's order accordingly.

Ms. Sabina Shazan Vs Dr. Vicar Qureshi — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 465 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under A(ticle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the order dated 19-01-2022 passed^jn l.A.No. 19 of 2022 in O.S.No.29 ol 2OZ2 on the file of the Court of the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ms. Sabina Shazan, D/o. Junaid Ali Khan, Aged about 34 years, Occupation. Business, Rlo 202, Hi-hne Enclave, King Kbthi, Hyderabbd, T.S., and C/o. Shazan Ethnic and Casual Wear in ground floor bf the premises bearing M No 5-9-313 to 3'16 Opp SBl, Gunfoundry Branch, Abids, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Dr. Vicar Qureshi. Wo Dr. Asif I\Iasood Qureshi, D/o. Late Mir Muzaffer Ali Khan. aged about 68 years, Occupation. Doctor, R/o. 3-6-361/20, Street No.20, Hrmayath Nagar Hyderabad, rep. by her SPA Holder, MR. Mir Mohammed Ali Khan. S/o. Late Mir Muzaffer AIi Khan, aqed about 65 years, Occupation Business, R/o. 3-6-361/20, Street No.20, Hiirayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Dr. Asif Unnisa Begum, D/o. Late Mir Muzaffer AIi Khan, aged about 67 years, Occupatron. Professor, R/o. 3-6-361/20, Street No.20, Himayath Nagar,' Hyderabad

¶13

3 Mrs Anwar Unnisa Begum, D/o. Late Mir Muzaffer Ali Khan, aged about 66 years. Occupation Household, Rio. H.No.3-6- 361/20, Street No.20, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad - 500 029, T.S.

¶14

4 Mr. Mir Mohammed Ali Khan, S/o. Late Mir Muzaffer Ali Khan, aged about 65 years, Occupation Business, R/o. 3-6-36'1/20, Street No.20, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTI FFS

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petitron under Section 151 of C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavtt filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operatron of the order in lA.No.19 of 2022 in O.S.No.29 of 2022. dated 1910112023. on the file of the XX|V Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the C.R.p.

¶18

Counsel for th€ Petitioner : Sri VEDULA VENKATA RAM,\NA rep. Sri D.B.

¶19

CHAITANYA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri R. A. ACHUTHANANT)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

PNR,J CRP No.465 of2023

¶23

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶25

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4 65 0F 202)

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned senior counsel Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, representing Sri D.B.Chaitanya learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel Sri R.A.Achuthanand for respondents.

¶28

In an application l-rled Order 15(A) read with Section 151 ol Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, i.e., I.A.No. 19 ot 2022 in O.S.No.29 of 2022 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, the Court below recorded the iollowing conciusions:

¶29

"l) The petitioner is not able to obtain occupancJ' cerrificate and therefore the respondent/tenant may not bc able to effectively use the leased premises. The petitioner is, horvevcr at tiberty to adduce evidence regarding actual use of premises by the respondent during trial of the court.

¶30

The respondent after lock in period or termination of lcase is not bound to continue in occupation oI the lcascd prertriscs and he has liberty to vacate the premises.

¶31

tf the respondent is willing to continue to be in possession of the property he is bound to pay damages/agreed rent @^{< 2,52,OOOl-per month, from the dateof} termination^{of the} lease. The amount of < 2,52,OOO/- is fixed onh for the purpose of adjudication of this period and parties are at liberty to adduce evidence on actual amounl to bc paid.

¶32

Thr Court will decide whether the petitioner is entitled to arrear s of rent prior to termination, after trial ltesecl on evider ce adduced.

¶33

The respondent shall pav arrears of rent/damage i lr-om the date o: termination of lease till the date of ordr.r cal'ulating rent () a^'2,52,0001- per month and the respol!(lcnt is contin re to deposit the amount of { 2,52.000/- Fer month from J rnuary, 2023, rilf] the disposat of thc sriit or v rc;,rtiorr of the prt mises by him, whichever is earlier. The arrcars of rent calculz ted from the date of termination of lease ;lrall be deposit ed in the Court within one month from thr ,late of order. The petitioner is at libertl, to rvithdra$ the a rr(,unt So deposit :d by the respondent.

¶34

A,ccordingly, the point is ansu'ercd."

¶35

Recorr ling the above conclusions, the Court below also directed th, r petitioner herein to deposit an amount of < 2,52,OOO/- per month towards rent or damages l.r.rm the date of terminati( n of the lease within one month frort the date of the order anl continue to deposit thc amount ol ? 2,S2,OOOIper month fr tm January, 2023 LllI vacation of I he pren.rises by the responde^'rt or disposal of the suit, r,r'hichever is c irrlierr.

¶36

This is an Order passed ar the intcrlo(.utory stage. The triai Court h ts gone into in grcater clctail or-r the issues and recorded the ;onclusions, as il final decision js mar.le. Further, as it is an i lterlocutory ordcr directing pal ment of nronthly

¶37

rNfr,,J CRP No.465 oJ2D3

¶38

¶39

¶40

rent, it could not have observed on the issue of possible vacation of the premises and also the issue of damages.

¶41

It is, therefore, clarified that the petitioner herein shall be liable to pay rent at the rate of t 2,52,000/ - per month from January, 2023, on or before Sfi day of every succeeding month, to be deposited in the Court below.

¶42

The Order of the Court beloq. is modified to the above extent. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

¶44

To,

¶45

,TRUE COPY//

¶46

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR L]D

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

¶49

The XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Cou(, Hyderabad

¶50

One CC to Sri D.B. CHATTANYA, Advocate [OpUC]

¶51

One CC to Sri R.A. ACHUTHANAND, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CD Copies.

Nib -- i;

HIGH COURT

PNR,J

DATED:17,0212023

ORDER

CRP.No.46l, of 2023

1 H: 'r r.: rt
a.
o
D ?1 rrs ;,,: f) li

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION^PETITION.

¶61

,
,--) A'
<br>

Ms. Sabina Shazan v. Dr. Vicar Qureshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Sabina Shazan v. Dr. Vicar Qureshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rt.Rev.Dr.Prof.K.Reuben Mark Vs E.Prabhu Kumar and 2 others

M v Raja Shekar Reddy and another Vs Dr. T Sheela Rao

Mrs. M Sirisha Reddy Vs Dr. T Sheela Rao

Mr. Cheemarla Nagarjuna Reddy Vs Mrs. Yasa Ramya Reddy

Lakanakunibi Yadagiri Vs Lakanakunibi Narasimha (Died per LRs)

Sri Nalin Kumar Shah Vs Sri Nalkari Raju